linux-kernel - Re: Official Linux system wrapper library?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6a415f31-2bce-72fa-2ff0-5cbbd572347b@suse.cz>
Date:   Sat, 10 Nov 2018 20:58:25 +0100
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Official Linux system wrapper library?

On 11/10/18 8:20 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 10:52:06AM -0800, Daniel Colascione wrote:
>> Now that glibc is basically not adding any new system call wrappers,
> 
> Why are they not doing that anymore?

FYI just noticed there's a topic relevant to this in LPC Toolchain MC:

https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/2/contributions/149/

> And there's no reason you have to use glibc, there are many other libcs
> out there that hopefully are adding the new syscalls :)
> 
>> how about publishing an "official" system call glue library as part of
>> the kernel distribution, along with the uapi headers? I don't think
>> it's reasonable to expect people to keep using syscall(__NR_XXX) for
>> all new functionality, especially as the system grows increasingly
>> sophisticated capabilities (like the new mount API, and hopefully the
>> new process API) outside the strictures of the POSIX process.
> 
> Patches are always welcome to be reviewed.  But watch out that they
> don't conflict with the libc headers.  I know we had a "klibc" proposed
> a long time ago but that died off for various reasons before it could
> get merged.
> 
> Also, what about the basic work of making sure our uapi header files can
> actually be used untouched by a libc?  That isn't the case these days as
> the bionic maintainers like to keep reminding me.  That might be a good
> thing to do _before_ trying to add new things like syscall wrappers.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
>